Choi v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
224 So. 3d 882
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jessica Choi was a passenger injured in a 2014 automobile collision allegedly caused by Haley Beutler, who was underinsured and alleged to have been intoxicated.
- Choi sued Beutler for negligence (count one) and punitive damages (count three), and sued her UM insurer, Auto-Owners, for underinsured motorist (UM) benefits (count two).
- Auto-Owners moved to sever the UM claim from the tort claims, arguing prejudice and relying on procedural rules/statutory nonjoinder theories.
- The trial court granted severance, reasoning Auto-Owners’ position represented the better view of applicable law and procedure.
- Choi sought common-law certiorari review in the Second District Court of Appeal, arguing the claims were inextricably interwoven and severance was improper.
- The Second District quashed the severance order, concluding severance would risk inconsistent outcomes and did not avoid the asserted prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly severed Choi's UM claim from her tort claims | Severance improper because claims are essentially the same and inextricably interwoven; joint trial avoids inconsistent verdicts | Severance appropriate to avoid prejudice and under nonjoinder/statutory or rule authority | Severance was improper; claims are inextricably interwoven and severance risks inconsistent outcomes |
| Whether § 627.4136(1) (nonjoinder statute) required or permitted severance | Joinder is permitted here; statute does not mandate separate trials in these circumstances | Initially argued statute required nonjoinder; later conceded joinder permissible and relied on Rule 1.270(b) discretion | Court noted Auto-Owners abandoned mandatory nonjoinder position and joinder is allowed; severance cannot be justified on that statutory basis |
| Whether Rule 1.270(b) permits severance to avoid prejudice where claims are interrelated | Rule should not be used to sever inextricably interwoven claims because risk of inconsistent verdicts outweighs asserted prejudice | Rule gives discretion to sever for prejudice or convenience; prejudice to insurer justifies separate trial | Court held severance under Rule 1.270(b) was a departure from essential requirements where claims are inextricably interwoven; severance denied |
| Whether severance would eliminate prejudice to insurer from knowledge of insurance or intoxication evidence | Joinder would prevent inconsistent verdicts and is required because same facts determine both claims | Severance would avoid jury exposure to tort evidence (intoxication) and insurance information | Court found severance would not avoid prejudice: insurance and intoxication facts would still surface in UM trial and are relevant to liability |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kilbreath, 419 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1982) (UM action is essentially the same cause of action as against an underinsured tortfeasor)
- Minty v. Meister Fin. Group, Inc., 97 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (certiorari appropriate where severance of interrelated claims risks inconsistent verdicts)
- Kavouras v. Mario City Rest. Corp., 88 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (severance improper where factual overlap risks inconsistent outcomes)
- Rocket Grp., LLC v. Jatib, 174 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (departure from essential requirements to sever inextricably intertwined claims)
- Rogan v. Oliver, 110 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (common-law certiorari standards: departure from essential requirements, material injury, and non-remediable on appeal)